For weeks now, since the tragic murders of 20 sweet children and six dedicated educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, (one month ago today, and that is some sad anniversary) we've been in the middle of some serious, long overdue gun control arguments. The gun nuts see any form of gun control as "an infringement of their right to bear arms". (Oh my God, I can barely type that one more time. It's so stupid. Even in quotes, it's stupid. But I must go on.)

The others, those who understand the need for gun control--gun owners and non-owners alike--are the ones who aren't nuts. (Just so we're clear.) But then we have the NRA. The National Rifle Association. The organization that began life in the 1870's as a mainstream group dedicated to conservation, aligning themselves with hunters and marksmen and Boy Scouts, fagawdsake.

Nobody remembers that old NRA, and nobody's happier about that than the new NRA. That old bunch were pansies compared to this new bunch. Now it's not so much about puny single-shot, short range rifles and self-protection pistols as it is about end-of-the-world weapons and beyond--those big guns necessary to overthrow a rogue government when the time comes. (And apparently it can't come soon enough.)

After years of lobbying by the NRA, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which, among other gun-friendly provisions, eased restrictions on interstate sales of firearms and expressly prohibited the federal government from creating a database of gun ownership.
A huge NRA triumph, the media declared. Some lawmakers said off the record that they would have voted against the act but feared retaliation from the gun lobby. And yet the Second Amendment fundamentalists were furious. The NRA endorsed the act even though it included a last-minute amendment pushed by gun-control advocates that further tightened the restrictions on machine guns.

So today's NRA has positioned itself as the go-to authority on all things that shoot but are only harmful if they do actual bodily harm. It's not the fault of the weapons, it's the fault of the bad guys (or even the good guys) who get hold of them and use them in a dangerous manner--namely by pulling the triggers.

Then, of course, there's that whole fuzzy Second Amendment thing, made ever so much clearer when the Supreme Court declared the words "well-regulated" and "militia" just so much filler on the way to giving individual citizens carte blanche to own any weapon ever manufactured in this country or elsewhere, and to buy ammunition for said any weapon known to man, and to do it without having to give up even a smidgeon of privacy by having to divulge names and addresses . (This was the very same Supreme Court majority that gave corporations the right to be ordinary people if it meant they could screw the rest of us and make piles of money doing it.)

So in the aftermath of the school shootings, the White House decided it would be a good idea to attempt to make nice with the NRA, considering how much more powerful they are than the people calling for some semblance of gun control sanity. They called on good old Joe Biden to meet with the mighty NRA and a handful of lesser gun groups, thinking (I'm guessing) that good old Joe could maybe talk the talk without having to, you know, walk the walk.

Lord knows what went on behind closed doors, but when the Gun Guys ("gun ban activists" they like to call themselves) came out and said they were "disappointed" in the meeting, I went on such a cheering jag. . .

Joe, bless his heart, didn't cave. He thought the meeting was "productive." (Ouch) He said something will be done. (Oouuch) And the NRA is not happy.

Their full statement:

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be "prejudged," this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works — and what does not.

Awww. What a genteel word, "disappointed". So much more grown-up than "pissed." But did you catch that last part? Where they say, "[W]e will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works — and what does not."

So it's another buying spree, is it? They think they can buy the hearts and minds of certain members of congress and that'll be the end of all this nonsense? It's a simple method, tried and true, with scads of past successes, but here's hoping when it comes to sane gun control we really mean it this time.

The press latched onto the White House meetings with the NRA with barely a mention of the other meetings also held as part of the task force on gun control. Biden and White House staff members met with educators, medical groups, victims organizations and other proponents of tougher gun laws in an effort to let all voices be heard on an issue as important and seemingly intractable as this one. This was not a privileged meeting afforded to the NRA only, and I doubt they were the only ones who were "disappointed."

It could be that "disappointed" takes on a whole new meaning when you're entering a White Housepresided over by occupants not bearing your stamp of approval. The NRA fought hard to move the Obama team out of the White House, and there were moments when they must have thought they had it in the bag. They should have been holding court in a more receptive Romney White House, but there you are. Things happen, no matter how heavy the artillery against it.

In the February, 2012 issue of the NRA magazine, American Rifleman, NRA president David Keene wrote,

"We are all going to have to work from now until November to help Wayne LaPierre make Barack Obama a one-term president. We have defeated anti-Second Amendment presidential wannabes before. Remember Al Gore? After the 2000 race, then-President Bill Clinton lamented that his Vice President would not be moving into the White House because you and I and millions other supporters of the Second Amendment cost him the electoral votes of at least five states--and therefore the Presidency. We did it then and we can do it again."

That myth about Gore's loss thanks to the NRA is more bluster the true believers keep on pushing, and members of congress keep on believing. But what the NRA can't ignore is that Barack Obama won a second term in spite of their best efforts.

And what the rest of us can't ignore is that the NRA will not take that lying down. They'll be up in arms big time over that one. (Proof positive: Gun sales have spiked. Skyrocketed, in fact, with sales of the AR-15, the gun used in the Sandy Hook shootings, right up there among collectors fearing likely banning)

Be warned--the NRA may never, ever forgive us for Obama.

So there.

NRA magazine cover, February, 2012. Depends on what they mean by "All In."

Comments

Ramona, I believe that even if the NRA had been pleased at the outcome of the Biden meeting they still would have used the same rhetoric. Why? Because it keeps paranoid people scared, and it sells more guns, that's why.

That is the sole purpose of the NRA. Gun safety? It is just a ruse to justify their existence to the few remaining non-nuts in their membership. With a membership of just 4 million they are disproportionately powerful. And the answer to that "why" question is money. They have a Congress that is bought and paid for. They want their money's worth.

Thanks for proving my point, Resistance. They have successfully scared you and all the other cowards out there who only feel empowered with a gun. I would feel sorry for you except that you are just too dangerous to warrant any sympathy.

PS: NO ONE HAS EVER THREATENED TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SILLY GUNS! You, YOU! YOU and your ilk are the problem!!!!

I include this link to remind others. If they try to ban the magazines, shot guns will be used. Then the gun ban advocates we'll be looking to ban shotguns?

Or those really bent on death, will resort to gas bombs, as they did recently in Pakistan? As did the Columbine shooters, who brought gas bombs to the cafeteria.

Or remember Timothy McVeigh, he didn't shoot anyone that I recall.

Without the evil intent, a gun, or Acetylenecylinders, an auto driven on a sidewalk, a rental truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel are in and of themselves, inanimate objects. They are not the root cause of the violence

As I reported before, more kids die in auto accidents and pool drownings.

Ever hear of Gettysburg and Pickets charge? The South ran the troops right straight at the heavily fortified Union ranks. ....The Democrats are running the same failed plan........ thinking they can attack the NRA.

They say when Lee ordered Pickets men to rush the barricades, he was sick and delusional because of the fever.

I stopped reading your comment after the Taft High School link because when I clicked on it, I discovered that one person had been injured. So yes, perhaps we can never fully stop our violence towards one another, but a shotgun injured one person and an automatic weapon killed 26.

And your point is that we shouldn't regulate the gun that kills multitudes more because there will still be a gun out there that can also do some harm? That's like saying we shouldn't imprison murderers because people will still jaywalk.

Now you're the one complaining about the way The Founders put it all together: majority rules in the legislative, and courts protect the rights of any minority after the fact.

Edit to add: your POV is a pretty small minority; you've got a long row to hoe And an aside: that poll and others have convinced me that your past arguments that this is going to lose votes for Dems that they could have on other issues aren't correct. The rabid opposition consists mostly of rock solid right wing across the board politically and is never going to agree with left of center on mostly everything else. Seems like even most gun owners and enthusiasts think more like Cuomo and ocean-kat here at dagblog than like you.

I am not complaining about the way the founders set it up, I am only complaining on how those opposed to the restrictions put upon them, abuse the system. Cuomo and those like him, make a mockery of the system.

Cuomo looks tough, as he brings forth challenges to the Constitution. If the courts reject his approach or his legal interception, Cuomo still looks tough.

"Vote for Cuomo he's tough" who cares if he abused the system for political gain?

Keep "Waving the Bloody shirt" if it gets you the votes and that's really all that matters, to these low life politicians.

Edit to add

I'm not interested in Polls.

If you provided a poll, that says the majority say they want to defend marriage, and those opposed should be sent to a camp to be reeducated.

Am I supposed to react "Really!! Well by all means the polls couldn't possibly be biased."

Or the folks in the deep south took a poll, and "the majority agrees slavery is acceptable?"

Who give a crap about your poll # AA; were not supposed to run our government on the polls, except cowardly politicians, use polls to give them cover.

Once again: majority rules, courts rectify if rights of minority are infringed

Polls have said majority have wanted some of these restrictions for a very long time.

Many who have wanted restrictions and haven't got them have argued that those of your opinion have unfairly lobbied and corrupted Congress to work against the majority's will for a very long time. It's clear that even a substantial portion of the NRA membership does not always agree with what the NRA has done with its lobbying power.

You won for decades against the will of the majority (by lobbying politicians and by more corrupt political action at times) and you're freaking out and whining about a few restrictions being added to address the recent changes in weapons capabilities, restrictions which the majority wants.

Furthermore, nobody is taking guns away, they are adjusting laws to the reality of new kinds and types of weapons continually available on the market.

In that context, you and the NRA are the ones that keep raising the bar, not happy with the weapons and ammunition you were happy with a couple of years ago, and, in that context, yes, it's not a joke: it follows that they and you want everyone who wants them to be able to have a bazooka, cannon and armed drones as well.

You're always preaching about "the people" not getting what they want. Well, one of the things "the people" want is some more restrictions on what kind of guns are out there and who qualifies to own what kind.

You don't seem to realize how ridiculous your arguments here seem to anyone who has read your comments for some time, that if you replaced "Mortgage Industry" for "NRA," I know you'd come down exactly on the other side of the issue, you're with the big bad guys here.

Established in 1990, the NRA Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context.

NRA members are not falling for this effort to divide and conquer.

You saying to me "Even your friends tell you to surrender"

AA; They're not my friends and I seriously doubt their commitment to the NRA.

Where in that mission statement does it say they'll fight to the death to keep semi-automatics and even bigger weapons in the hands of all people? Or that they'll take mountains of money from gun sellers and manufacturers in order to become a powerful enough lobby to scare our leaders into taking a hands-off approach to sensible gun control?

This is what it says:

These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context.

If you had read the article I cited in my post you would have seen that the Right Wing has taken over an organization that did start out as an advocate for gun safety, marksmanship skills and firearm education. That is not their main focus today, and hasn't been since the mid-1970s.

But I'm curious--when did you become an NRA member? How many years have you been involved? What's in it for you?

Your friends? You enjoy following the lead of Evangelicals, who at any time could muster up their fellow, MORAL MAJORITY members who'll go after those groups that are considered by them, not Christian enough?

Once declared Un- Christian, and they'd have already been disarmed and defenseless.

You're probably correct AA, I am in the minority and I don't feel safe in that position.

Resistance, I don't believe for a minute that you really buy into the ridiculous things you write here about gun control and other government takeover theories so I won't comment further. You'll have to get your jollies somewhere else.

giving individual citizens carte blanche to own any weapon ........................... (This was the very same Supreme Court majority that gave corporations the right to be ordinary people if it meant they could screw the rest of us and make piles of money doing it.....

Search form

In the News

I have no idea or particular opinion about whether Garrison Keillor is guilty of anything, though it's always struck me as odd. But this somewhat but not quite illuminating article gums up the works a bit when taken as a part of a whole. The whole, of course, being accusations flying hither and yon with little if any explanation - even when they could stand some.

(THREAD) Yulya Alferova—ex-wife of Russian oligarch Artem Klyushin and a member of Trump's entourage in Moscow in 2013—is yet another witness who confirms, albeit inadvertently, Trump lied about what happened at the Ritz Moscow. The list of such witnesses is now very, very long. pic.twitter.com/BViILTZP67

On the hamster wheel of continual work, production and consumption, and Hebert Marcuse's.dreams.

[....] Marcuse did not live to see the 1980s, however [....] But his ideas lived on. In a 2004 essay for Harper’s magazine, for example, novelist and essayist Mark Slouka took to task the U.S. obsession with work [....]

One woman’s account of clandestine meetings, financial transactions, and legal pacts designed to hide an extramarital affair.....American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, had paid a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for exclusive rights to McDougal’s story ...David Pecker, AMI CEO, describes the President as “a personal friend... he never printed a word about Trump without his approval.”

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Was Trump diminishing the significance of the word treason, projecting onto the opposition (as he so often does) his own transgressions, by accusing Democrats of treason for not applauding him at the SOU?

Talking heads don't appear to have had much time to look at the details yet. Reporters are waiting on the formal announcement from Rod Rosenstein of the indictments. It is clear that they are directly related to Putin, not clear yet whether to the Trump administration.

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment Friday against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of violating US laws to interfere with US elections and political processes [....]

[....] in a blow to President Donald Trump, the GOP plan to enshrine his four-part immigration framework came the furthest of any proposal from reaching the 60-vote margin needed for passage, failing by 39-60. A competing bipartisan agreement got rejected, 54-45, after a furious White House campaign to defeat it, including a Thursday veto threat.

WASHINGTON — Steve Bannon, who served as President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller over multiple days this week, NBC News has learned from two sources familiar with the proceedings.

When a transgender woman told doctors at a hospital in New York that she wanted to breast-feed her pregnant partner’s baby, they put her on a regimen of drugs that included an anti-nausea medication licensed in Britain and Canada but banned in the United States.

Within a month, according to the journal Transgender Health, the woman, 30, who was born male, was producing droplets of milk. Within three months — two weeks before the baby’s due date — she had increased her production to eight ounces of milk a day [....]

President Trump endorsed a 25-cent gas tax hike to pay for infrastructure at a White House meeting this morning with senior administration officials and members of Congress from both parties, according to two sources with direct knowledge. Trump also said he was open to other ways to pay for infrastructure, according to a source with direct knowledge.